Cochran v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James ' Gibson, Judge. (1) The conclusion of law in the judgment was erroneous because of its generality. Elliott’s Gen. Proc., sec. 969; Shipp v. Snyder, 121 Mo. 155. (2) The court erred in refusing to find as a material fact whether the appearance of the plaintiffs in this suit by attorneys in the partition suit was authorized. First.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. — Hon. James ' Gibson, Judge. (1) The conclusion of law in the judgment was erroneous because of its generality. Elliott’s Gen. Proc., sec. 969; Shipp v. Snyder, 121 Mo. 155. (2) The court erred in refusing to find as a material fact whether the appearance of the plaintiffs in this suit by attorneys in the partition suit was authorized. First. If the special finding did not cover all the issues in the case, or all the material facts involved in any of the issues, the remedy is by a motion for a new trial. Graham v. State, 66 Ind. 386; Wilson v. Hamilton, 75…
1Opinion of the CourtMacfarlane, J.
This suit is ejectment prosecuted by Charles A. Cochran, George Lester Cochran, A. L. Cummings and W. J. Turner as plaintiffs, the last two being the husbands respectively of Medora (Cochran) Turner and Anna (Cochran) Cummings in whose right they claim. Plaintiffs claim title as heirs at law of Harriet Cochran, deceased. Defendant Thomas is the tenant of his codefendants who claim title under a sheriff’s deed in a certain partition proceeding in which they claim to have acquired the title of plaintiffs. They also claim under a tax deed and the statutes of limitation.
*264The petition is in the…
2Cases cited25 opinions
- Campbell v. Missouri Pacific Railway Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1894
- McClanahan v. WestSupreme Court of Missouri · 1889
- Real Estate Saving Inst. v. ColloniousSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Austin v. LoringSupreme Court of Missouri · 1876
- Louisville, New Albany & Chicago Railway Co. v. HartIndiana Supreme Court · 1889
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- Leilich v. Chevrolet Motor Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1931
- State ex rel. Applegate v. TaylorSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Scott v. RoystonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1909
- Stuart Ex Rel. Stuart v. DickinsonSupreme Court of Missouri · 1921
- Kostuba v. MillerSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.